I get intrigued when Christian leaders/organizations think they know best about the inter-workings of relationships, and in this case, marriage. I was taken aback at the title of the following article:

* * *

The screenshot above was taken from an article at the Focus on the Family website. I was surprised that the article began by giving a warning “sexual anorexia” first. Addictions to porn could lead to sexual anorexia. Sexual anorexia was described as “a way of manipulating her and exercising control over the marriage.”

Here’s more:

It’s true that God has made man “male and female” (Genesis 1:27) and that the sexes are distinct from one another in some profoundly important ways. Among other things, men and women approach physical intimacy differently. It’s also true that the Lord has appointed the husband to serve as leader and initiator in every aspect of marriage. This includes the sexual arena. Even from a biological standpoint, the female is designed to function primarily as the receptor in the sexual act. But none of this implies that women can’t express themselves sexually in a free and spontaneous manner. That would be a serious misinterpretation of the biblical standard. Stereotypes of this kind can do a disservice to both husbands and wives. They rob couples of a vital source of joy and satisfaction and place on them heavy burdens of unnecessary guilt.

Reading the bolded part, I got flashbacks of Doug Wilson when he set off a huge firestorm in the blogosphere because of a blog article written by Jared Wilson (which has since been removed).

Here is an excerpt from the book by Doug Wilson from which Jared Wilson referenced (* * * SEX ABUSE TRIGGER WARNING* * * *):

Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours. (Douglas Wilson’s book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87)

For a couple of weeks or so, this was the hot subject in the blogosphere with some big names involved in the discussion, including this article by Rachel Held Evans. Interestingly, after that firestorm and an apology by Jared Wilson to Rachel Held Evans, Doug Wilson posted this quote sent to him by a friend. He couldn’t let it go. It seems to line up with his way of thinking:

“Sex, as commonly conceived, is something a couple do together. But the sexual act itself is not quite like that. It is, and remains, something a man does to a woman. They are not both working at the same thing. He is giving, she is receiving. He is the lover, she the beloved. Now, if they both set out to “have some Sex,” the whole delicate balance is wrecked, and neither can find his own role. What is happening is that the difference we all love so dearly is taking a bad beating. The wife is being backed into a decreasingly feminine role, even in overtly sexual matters, and the husband is finding that he has less and less of an object to be masculine toward. He is getting what he wants, but not what he needs. He asks frequently enough, but he has lost sight of what to ask for; and that is deadly” (Robert Farrar Capon,Bed and Board, p. 51)

* * *

At the end of the Focus on the Family article we read much more balance:

Biblically speaking, then, it’s good, healthy, right, proper, and appropriate for both marriage partners to take an active role in initiating sexual relations. This will vary according to circumstances and each spouse’s mood, feelings, and desires. Here, if anywhere, a couple’s relationship should be characterized by the give-and-take of a dance. The important thing is to maintain the kind of mutual affection and respect that enables you to be open and honest with one another.

Yeah, I’m wondering how many men are sitting around saying, “I feel emasculated because my wife initiates sex all the time.” Usually men seem to have the opposite complaint.🙂

But if you adhere to a strict complementarian (is that word?) philosophy to gender roles asking the question above makes sense. I’d like to know what constitutes initiating sex? I guess showing up at the front door in nothing but saran wrap would do it. But how about a suggestive look or fluttering one’s eyelashes?

You could really get Talmudic about the nuances of this issue. Maybe Joshua Harris can write a book about the degree to which it’s Biblical for women to initiate sex.

Good grief. This shows how people in the church cannot think for themselves or not allowed to. We are free in these areas, which are private, to do whatever we want to do. If the woman wants to initiate sex, do it, don’t ask for permission from those who have no business poking into this area of your life. We are free in Christ, not bondservants. Do what you want to do in areas of job, sex, to dance or not to dance, music. Live Christians. Live. Christ died for us to do this.

Julie Anne wrote: “I would love for a guy who holds to some of this conquering ideology to chime in.”

That certainly won’t be me. I can’t imagine having such a boring an inequitable sex life. What the real deal is, though, is that a man that believes that a woman should be completely submissive, even in this area of a relationship, is a man that is very insecure about his sexuality and ability to be a good lover.

Real, secure men WANT to be wanted, and want their women to let them know they are desired and desirable, and have no problem admitting those things.

I’ve known several women who have told me they were in that kind of marriage, and how unfulfilling it was, to the point of them shutting down sexually. How sad to have a type of relationship that consists of one-sided sex with the main purpose of simply creating children. Even the animals seem to manage better than that.

Ryan M. – your statement begs the question. Not suggesting SGM counseling was completely up to par, but there was a reason for said couple to be seeking out help to begin with. The divorce rate in the Christian Church is not a problem isolated to SGM churches and those people seeking counsel from SGM pastors. There is enough bad with SGM without throwing in every single other church, with people in it, into the same pot, which is what your type of comment effectively does.

Ric, I believe patriarchal teachings where husbands think they own their wives’ faith, bodies, etc, is certainly a contributing favor to divorce rate. Obviously it is not isolated to SGM – just look at Doug Wilson’s words and that will clue anyone in.

JA, I deleted that Tweet about a minute after I hit send. I didn’t realize there was actually going to be a trigger alert in the post itself, which, obviously, I didn’t read before I “tweeted.” Sorry about that — and I apologize to anyone else who might have seen it.

I was trying to communicate that the divorce rate within Christendom has been determined as high or higher than within secular culture. To point at a SGM church for having lots of divorces is odd, unless theirs is much higher than other churches, but this is unknown (ref: Barna – unless he’s compared denominations).

The user’s comment came across like saying SGM churches are bad because of the high divorce rate within their communities, and probably due to the pastoral counsel. If this were accurate (cause and effect), most churches would fit within the same criticism and SGM churches should not be singled out as if something is exclusively wrong with them.

The high rates of divorce cannot be boiled down merely to SGM pastoral counsel, exclusively. To say such is an unfair accusation, there are many reasons why folks entered counsel to begin with, most likely of their own making, and years of it (one spouse or the other, or both). Also, I can point to folks who’s marriage was saved by pastoral counsel within SGM churches. This, on it’s own merit, doesn’t make SGM pastoral counsel right either.

Does this help? I’m sensitive to the wide brush when folks make comments. I hope I’m not doing that either, but if I do, I certainly appreciate the feedback.

Good grief. This shows how people in the church cannot think for themselves or not allowed to. We are free in these areas, which are private, to do whatever we want to do. If the woman wants to initiate sex, do it, don’t ask for permission from those who have no business poking into this area of your life. We are free in Christ, not bondservants. Do what you want to do in areas of job, sex, to dance or not to dance, music. Live Christians. Live. Christ died for us to do this.

Apparently Focus on the Family and Douglas Wilson think they need to tell us the “biblical” perspective. In Focus on the Family’s defense, it looks as if someone asked them the question and so they figured that one person represents many and decided to answer it. I suspect that Mr. Wilson answered it because he thought the Christian world would appreciate his opinion of the matter.

Thanks for the explanation, Ric. In my opinion, most SGM Pastors are not qualified to engage in any type of counseling because they have not been to seminary or acquired professional counseling training in any other capacity. Some of them haven’t been to college. Joshua Harris reputedly doesn’t have a high school diploma because he thought that refusing one made a good statement about home schooling.

By contrast all mainsteam (e.g. Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran) denominations require Pastors to go to college for 7 years at seminaries that’s curricula include teaching counseling strategies.

Sorry to paint a broad picture but if SGM’s Pastoral counseling training for marriage issues was anywhere near as bad as its counseling training for preventing and handling the after-math of sexual abuse, I believe it probably did contribute to its supposed high rate of divorce.

I’d be interested in thoughts on the last two paragraphs of that article:

A husband should not be given any encouragement (or apparent excuses) for living any kind of a double life. If that encouragement is foolishly given, he is still responsible for what he is saying and doing, but one of the purposes of marriage is to help us resist sin together — but too many husbands and wives live as stumbling blocks for one another. And a man should not work to put food on the table, his own table, and then come away from that table hungry.

One of the best scenes in the marvelous film Sweet Land is when Inge feeds Olaf a dinner with “just food.” The sexual overtones are obvious, but are as wonderful as the dinner clearly was. And in both areas, it is crucial that the home not become a place of tight-fisted denial, where wives become the governess of no, instead of the mistress of yes. When that no happens, as a result the world outside is positioned to take up the role of promising satisfaction to cheaters. That is an invitation that many husbands need like a hole in the head.

1) my intention with my first comment was neither to steer this convo towards focusing on SGM, nor to “throw in every single other church into the same pot” (though I’m unclear as to how I did that…). I was simply making a connection between the subject of the post and personal experience: Douglas Wilson and his ilk were extremely popular in the SGM circles I ran in, and I believe that, in part, these teachings about sexuality that he and his followers advocate contributed to the divorce rate in SGM.

2) I understand this is entirely anecdotal, but: I’ve been involved in churches for my entire life, and yes, the divorce rate in SGM is much, much, much higher than any other church or denomination that I’ve been personally involved in.

3) pastoral counseling for married couples going through tough times is simply one channel through which this type of teaching came. It was also preached from the pulpit, given in pre-marital counseling, appeared in books sold at the church bookstore, etc.

4) SGM is extremely patriarchal. I don’t know if this gives you any indication, but Michael and Debi Pearl were popular authors at our particular SGM church…

Honest truth? The quotes in this piece seem a bit creepy and intrusive to me…but, most importantly they seem to disregard what seems a very private, mutually pursued marital act, according to the Bible.

It says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Cor 7:4) To me, that advances the view that there is a mutual authority exercised here–each is owned by the other. The views quoted above (that state that wives are mere receivers of intimacy, not givers or initiators) do not afford the wife this biblical right, but instead presume she is something to be conquered (to put it delicately!) by the husband, and possesses no inherent power or right to initiate intimacy. In other words, according to the views presented in the articles, the wife is left with no means of a practical exercise of such authority, if she is denied the opportunity and right to initiate physical intimacy. Her supposed authority becomes simply the authority to be under the authority of her husband. Ugh. (Another case of the bible interfering with someone’s doctrine…)

Paul goes on, “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Again, If the wife has no authority/power to deprive her spouse of intimacy, this verse is nonsensical! She MUST possess such authority/power in order to logically be held accountable by this verse for how she uses the authority–it would be unfair of God to hold a wife accountable for how she exercises her “authority” over her husband’s body while at the same time denying that she has such authority!

Complementarian sex appeals to control freaks, IMO. You’re missing out on God’s best for you, comp men. Let go of your conquer/control death grip on the wheel, and you might actually enjoy your wife’s free will. 🙂 Oops, forgot free will is not part of your theology or in your realm of possibility. Downer to be you in the bedroom. Uh oh, I need to stop or I’m gonna get myself in trouble!

All kidding aside, this comp lifestyle can easily diminish wives into objects, IMO. It can break down into entitlement, hate, and abuse. If we raise boys with a conquer mindset for marriage, they will become barbarian men. We should correctly raise boys to follow Jesus’ commands to love God and then themselves/others. Love is nowhere to be found in the definition of conquer. Barbarians conquer.

Marriage is about companionship. Yes, offspring may result. But if offspring is the primary purpose and pleasure for you, you’ve missed God’s best.

I’m also guessing some of these comp leaders do not practice what they preach about this particular topic. Typical. The rules for them are different, as we have seen many times.

Doug Wilson is quoted as saying, “the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” He is also quoted as indicating that, if this view is not accepted, then, “Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the ‘soon to be made willing’ heroine.”

If, in a Christian marriage, the husband’s role is to penetrate, conquer, colonize, and plant, and if the only acceptable role for the wife is to receive, surrender and accept, then the only difference between marital intimacy and rape is a government issued marriage certificate. If the inexorable alternative to such a domination/submission relationship is that the frustrated couple will fall into fantasies of rape and being raped, the good news of Christ in us, the hope of glory, is utter, impotent, deception.

Although I may be forgetting something, I understand that Ken’s 6:19 PM post identifies the only New Testament passage in which a husband is specifically said to have authority over his wife, and the authority is reciprocal. The wife is supposedly commanded to submit to her husband in Ephesians 5:22, although the Greek text does not actually contain the word “submit” in this verse, and I cannot find a single imperative mood command directed to wives from Eph 5:21 to the end of the chapter. Even if the sense of the questionably translated passage is that a wife is commanded to submit to her husband, it does not follow that the husband is granted authority over his wife. Rather, at verse 25, it is indicated that the husband is to LOVE (not exercise authority over) his wife. (Interestingly, the ESV reads that a husband “should” love his wife, while the Greek more literally and strongly indicates that the husband “owes” love to his wife.)

It appears to me that Doug Wilson assumes that Christian relationships are to be ordered on the basis of authority, rather than on the basis of love, and that he rides this assumption to extraordinary extremes. Even more disturbingly, it appears that the English translators have in this (and other) instances written the same authority-instead-of-love presupposition into the English “translation” of the Bible itself.

Gary W. – – I took the liberty to change the name “Jared” to “Doug” in your comment. It’s confusing because both men have the same last name. I also added the name “Doug Wilson” to one of the sentences to make sure it’s very clear that Jared did not author the quoted excerpt. I should have been more clear with both men having the same last name.

*new* Here is an excerpt from the book by Doug Wilson from which Jared Wilson referenced . .

*old* Here is an excerpt from the book Jared Wilson was referencing. . .

Hi A Mom, Re: 7:34 post, you wrote “Complementarian sex appeals to control freaks, IMO.” I understand complementarianism as a particular theology related to the relationship of gender, as is egalitariansim. The Bible actually says very little about the specific sexual practices that happen in a marriage, and since I know many happy, healthy, long-terms marriage partners of both theological camps, I wonder if it’s really a fair judgment on either one to say the sexual relationships of its adherents is wrong or unhealthy, just on the basis of the theology. What do you think?

Ken – I loved your 6:19 comment. Just curious, when you referred to creepy quotes, were you referring to Wilson’s or the Focus on the Family article, or both?

I think you nailed the ownership thing. Wife is subservient.

You must have heard my loud YES echoing all the way through the Gorge into downtown PDX with this comment:

Again, If the wife has no authority/power to deprive her spouse of intimacy, this verse is nonsensical! She MUST possess such authority/power in order to logically be held accountable by this verse for how she uses the authority–it would be unfair of God to hold a wife accountable for how she exercises her “authority” over her husband’s body while at the same time denying that she has such authority!

I’m never shocked by CREEPY christian teaching as I realize it is propagated by wacked out guys like Doug Wilson and his dear friend at Vision Forum. Scripture never seems to be sufficient for these guys and they have to create their own teachings that just not square with the WORD.

Recent a friend told me that during his premarital counseling the pastor told him and his fiancé that a wife should never be on top during marital relations because it esurps the mans authority and makes him submissive. He also said a man should never do laundry or cleaning within the home and the wife should never mow the lawn or shovel snow because it creates an unbiblical role reversal. His wife to be runs a nice size business and has been known to hope on a forklift to pull inventory and mows her own lawn with a John Deere.

I don’t know but as a single guy I can tell you there have been many times when I wish I knew how to properly sew a button on or cook a turkey for example. Some I don’t think God cares if I mop a floor or do a few loads of laudrey. The wife on top ?
If I asked my one living Grandparent (ministers wife) if that’s an issue she would crack up laughing. She once told me that she is glad all these weird ideas weren’t around when she was starting out.

I was referring to the Wilson quote–which at one time I would have been certain that he deeply regretting having made such a statement, but now…I’m not so sure. There is such an illusion of power and impact through our words that go out into cyberspace…I think more than a few leaders are trapped by rush of an argument online and so make increasingly bizarre assertions. Remember, Jerry Springer actually seemed kind of legit as a talkshow host, at one time…then….

Ken, I was following the comments on Jared Wilson’s original blog post which was later removed. I had no idea what hornets nest that blog post was going to be when I initially read it.

Jared continued to defend Doug’s words and then Doug Wilson came to Jared’s blog and defended his own words. He did not change his tune. Also, Doug Wilson’s daughter came to his rescue and defended her dad. There’s some big-time Male-Dominating-flavored Kool-Aid stirring up in Moscow, ID.

Oh, I was able to find the deleted post on the Wayback Machine: http://goo.gl/MjbPr You can see all of the comments here.

“1Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.”

There are some things I have always been taught about these verses. But there are two things I never considered about them. First, I would love to know what Paul was responding to, as he refers to in verse one. The Corinithian church had obviously sent inquiries, questions, or concerns that Paul was responding to specifically. I have to wonder if it was a lack of self control in women and men. Likewise, how much of what he is addressing is connected to the culture and lifestyle of Corinth in that day? Secondly, Paul says in verse six, “I say this as a concession, not as a command.” It’s interesting to note that I have always seen these verses taught as commands.

Actually, verse two states whay Paul is writing this — sexual immorality is occurring!! Interesting that he starts the entire portion with, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” I’m sure many men and women would disagree with this😉 But how often have we heard this verse taught on or quoted compared to the ones following in this section?

Recent a friend told me that during his premarital counseling the pastor told him and his fiancé that a wife should never be on top during marital relations because it esurps the mans authority and makes him submissive. He also said a man should never do laundry or cleaning within the home and the wife should never mow the lawn or shovel snow because it creates an unbiblical role reversal.

This is beyond Talmud and into Taliban Shari’a-land. Man’s Work, Woman’s Work, Man on Top, Woman on Bottom. Turning everything into Power Struggle; where the woman tries to get uppity and the man keeps her in her place.

Oh, yeah. That Kirk(TM) in Moscow, ID, is a CULT. Which also defends as God-ordained examples other relationships of power-and-powerless as the Confederate States’ “Peculiar Institution regarding cerain Animate Property.” And those who defend and encourage such power structures are ALWAYS the one said power structure would put on top.

And when such power structures are justified in the Name of God, what is the effect on the powerless’s view of God?

How kind of our Lord when he designed us gals that He thought of everything.The clitoris is the only organ in either sex with pleasure as its sole function. It has nothing to do with getting pregnant, with menstruation, or with urination.

Pleasure as it sole function… Methinks God is not tame, not a control freak, loves His bride and delights over her with singing… It is disheartening that our divine love affair with our maker has been highjacked by men who have to chime in with their theology on a couples intimate love life.

Thanks for posting the Wayback Machine link of Jared Wilson’s post! I was one of the commenters who evidently lacked reading comprehension skills. I WAS grateful that Jared left part of my comment intact before he edited it. This part:

“I also noticed something on pg 84 of the same chapter. He wrote,
“Rapists are hardly a pool for selecting fine sons-in-law.”

I wonder what kind of rapist he means? Do you happen to know? Only of women? Or a pedophile rapist?
[COMMENT EDITED BY ADMIN]”

And my second comment to his reply:

“Jared,

As far as my off topic comment-it was not gossip, although I admit off topic and for that I will apologize. Nevertheless, it is documented and true fact. We are not allowed to reveal facts about someone? Surely we are to observe the actions of our Christian leaders so we can know them by their fruit. We can even talk about them and warn others. Just because something is true and negative doesn’t place it in the idle talk or rumor category.”

I so hoped people would put two and two together and google “pedophile rapist and Doug Wilson” and let the journey begin. Then TWW did their informative post on Doug Wilson and Steven Sitler…. which was very good and so necessary.

Gail, that’s such a good point! You just blew Wilson’s negative “egalitarian pleasure party” out of the water. Isn”t that crazy? He thinks a woman is only supposed to receive, surrender, and accept. Nope, buddy, we’re supposed to have fun!

Diane – I don’t know why I never thought to look up that link on the Wayback Machine before.

You were absolutely right about the Sitler case. That reveals who this guy is. A couple of us were tweeting about that subject. How does this work? He gets a convicted pedophile to marry someone. I’m pretty sure they believe in full-quiver, regardless, they are very pro-family and we all know that God’s design in marriage is to produce fruit. So how does that work with a convicted pedophile who can’t be around children? Will they use birth control (which in their beliefs is against God’s plan)? Maybe they will remain celibate? (That’s against Bible.) Maybe he will have to move out of the house and have no contact with kids? Doug Wilson was a fool to arrange that marriage.

Good point on Doug’s wife as well as other women married to these type of “leaders”. We are taught(thankfully I was not, my family was pretty good in letting us girls think for ourselves) at an early age to rely on those who are head of the church to think for us and this prompts questions like this. The dependence is never ending. There are a long list of “What do I do” questions that women especially ask. It’s sad.

This is why it blogs like this are important. It educates women to use the brain God gave us to know when something is wrong. To study the Bible for ourselves. If you notice, blogs such as this one and others are the ones that get the most abuse from leaders who think they are being Biblical by controlling their congregation. That’s what is so dangerous. These guys think they are right and not just right, but have God on their side right. It’s no different than a cult. In fact it is a cult.

JA said:
“Someone commented on the SSB page to the question “Is it Proper for Christian Wives to Initiate Sex?”

‘My husband LOVES it when I do… so am I not following his headship in doing something that gets him all revved up?'”

My comment:
I would suppose that afterward that the husband is doing a lot of repenting for giving in to his wife’s temptations, and not controlling the situation with his so-called authority, then to look at his wife, saying, “Get thee behind me Satan!”

I would suppose that afterward that the husband is doing a lot of repenting for giving in to his wife’s temptations, and not controlling the situation with his so-called authority, then to look at his wife, saying, “Get thee behind me Satan!”

Well, that’s only until one look at his wife’s come-hither eyes yet again. Stumble, stumble, crash! Such a difficult roller coaster life for these folks, I tell you.

Yes it was an outrage, imo. When you read Wilson’s letter to the judge in the link I posted asking for kinda-sorta leniency for Sitler…(because Wilson had “good hope” that Sitler had truly repented), you see how foolish Wilson is. After all, Wilson had a whopping 6 counseling sessions (iirc) with Sitler while in jail to inform his decision that Sitler had repented of his “issues of discontent” (sexual molestation of many children) as Doug Wilson phrased it.
All the court docs are interesting reading.

Diane – I remember reading this story quite a while ago. They had to appeal to the courts to allow this guy to get married. Crazy, crazy and very sad story. I didn’t realize they were updating his pics on that site.

Hi Julie Anne,
Is Complementarian the same as patriarchy? That’s such a good question. What is Comp in action? I did some research. After trying to figure it out, I have to say I’m confused. There seems to be much disagreement on what Complementarianism is in action, much ambiguity on the part of leaders who claim to be Comps. It appears there is much overlap, if there is a difference between the two. Is anyone else confused?
What I found: John Piper supposedly coined the word “Complementarian” a while ago. It seems Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Piper and Grudem is a reference book for many Comp leaders. According to Piper’s statement on Desiring God, he wrote it as a defense against evangelical feminism. Desiring God has a video of Mary Kassian called “What does it mean to be CompIementarian”. She says men and women are different (I agree). She says our roles are different, but doesn’t say what those different roles are. This is just one example of ambiguity. Apparently, there’s multiple Comp. types. There’s hard and soft comp, old and new comp.

What I found so interesting:
Many are jumping ship from Complementarian to Egalitarian.
Many identify with Complementarian but actually function as Egalitarian.

Rachel Held Evans post “It’s not complementarianism; it’s patriarchy” was very helpful. http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/complementarians-patriarchy I’d have to say I most identified with her views on this. Rachel seems to think Comp and Patriarchy are the same. She points to what Owen Strachan wrote, “For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.”

Back when the Jared Wilson/Douglas Wilson thing erupted last summer, I jotted down a few thoughts about the whole thing in a post I called “Douglas Wilson Worships Zardoz”. Hope it’s alright if I share a link🙂 http://wp.me/p2b7Uo-9u

JA – you said, “Sorry to paint a broad picture but if SGM’s Pastoral counseling training for marriage issues was anywhere near as bad as its counseling training for preventing and handling the after-math of sexual abuse, I believe it probably did contribute to its supposed high rate of divorce”

Don’t be sorry, at all. That observation certainly has plenty of merit and folks should be trained to do what they do.

of note, one only needs a master of theology to be a pastor in many denoms (some don’t require the masters). That’s on top of any ‘liberal arts degree’, say, “basket weaving” – above water, will do. I believe Presbyterians require a master of divinity – 30 more credit hours.

Have you published any posts regarding “biblical counseling?” I’d be interested in hearing what folks here think about it. I imagine there are various types taught at the seminaries.

Ryan M. – Since you mentioned the inimitable “Zardoz,” here is some choice dialogue:

[the gigantic Stone Head hovers before the worshipful horde of Exterminators]

Zardoz: Zardoz speaks to you, His chosen ones.

Exterminators: We are the chosen ones!

Zardoz: You have been raised up from Brutality, to kill the Brutals who multiply, and are legion. To this end, Zardoz your God gave you the gift of the Gun. The Gun is good!

Exterminators: The Gun is good!

Zardoz: The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.

Ever heard of the pastor who preached “Second Amendment Sunday” packing heat in the pulpit with NRA membership applications handed out in the narthex?

Any preacher-man doing a Second Amendment Sunday should be made to preach it in red speedos, red bandoliers, black hooker boots, and a Zardoz helm. For his church has become the First Church of Zardoz.